STUDY OBJECTIVE: We study the incremental value of the ABCD2 score in predicting short-term risk of ischemic stroke after thorough emergency department (ED) evaluation of transient ischemic attack. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients presenting to the ED with a transient ischemic attack. Patients underwent a full ED evaluation, including central nervous system and carotid artery imaging, after which ABCD2 scores and risk category were assigned. We evaluated correlations between risk categories and occurrence of subsequent ischemic stroke at 7 and 90 days. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 637 patients (47% women; mean age 73 years; SD 13 years). There were 15 strokes within 90 days after the index transient ischemic attack. At 7 days, the rate of stroke according to ABCD2 category in our cohort was 1.1% in the low-risk group, 0.3% in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.7% in the high-risk group. At 90 days, the rate of stroke in our ED cohort was 2.1% in the low-risk group, 2.1% in the intermediate-risk group, and 3.6% in the high-risk group. There was no relationship between ABCD2 score at presentation and subsequent stroke after transient ischemic attack at 7 or 90 days. CONCLUSION: The ABCD2 score did not add incremental value beyond an ED evaluation that includes central nervous system and carotid artery imaging in the ability to risk-stratify patients with transient ischemic attack in our cohort. Practice approaches that include brain and carotid artery imaging do not benefit by the incremental addition of the ABCD2 score. In this population of transient ischemic attack patients, selected by emergency physicians for a rapid ED-based outpatient protocol that included early carotid imaging and treatment when appropriate, the rate of stroke was independent of ABCD2 stratification.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We study the incremental value of the ABCD2 score in predicting short-term risk of ischemic stroke after thorough emergency department (ED) evaluation of transient ischemic attack. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients presenting to the ED with a transient ischemic attack. Patients underwent a full ED evaluation, including central nervous system and carotid artery imaging, after which ABCD2 scores and risk category were assigned. We evaluated correlations between risk categories and occurrence of subsequent ischemic stroke at 7 and 90 days. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 637 patients (47% women; mean age 73 years; SD 13 years). There were 15 strokes within 90 days after the index transient ischemic attack. At 7 days, the rate of stroke according to ABCD2 category in our cohort was 1.1% in the low-risk group, 0.3% in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.7% in the high-risk group. At 90 days, the rate of stroke in our ED cohort was 2.1% in the low-risk group, 2.1% in the intermediate-risk group, and 3.6% in the high-risk group. There was no relationship between ABCD2 score at presentation and subsequent stroke after transient ischemic attack at 7 or 90 days. CONCLUSION: The ABCD2 score did not add incremental value beyond an ED evaluation that includes central nervous system and carotid artery imaging in the ability to risk-stratify patients with transient ischemic attack in our cohort. Practice approaches that include brain and carotid artery imaging do not benefit by the incremental addition of the ABCD2 score. In this population of transient ischemic attack patients, selected by emergency physicians for a rapid ED-based outpatient protocol that included early carotid imaging and treatment when appropriate, the rate of stroke was independent of ABCD2 stratification.
Authors: Michael A Ross; Scott Compton; Patrick Medado; Maureen Fitzgerald; Philip Kilanowski; Brian J O'Neil Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Philippa C Lavallée; Elena Meseguer; Halim Abboud; Lucie Cabrejo; Jean-Marc Olivot; Olivier Simon; Mikael Mazighi; Chantal Nifle; Philippe Niclot; Bertrand Lapergue; Isabelle F Klein; Eric Brochet; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Guy Lesèche; Julien Labreuche; Pierre-Jean Touboul; Pierre Amarenco Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Peter M Rothwell; Matthew F Giles; Arvind Chandratheva; Lars Marquardt; Olivia Geraghty; Jessica N E Redgrave; Caroline E Lovelock; Lucy E Binney; Linda M Bull; Fiona C Cuthbertson; Sarah J V Welch; Shelley Bosch; Faye C Alexander; Faye Carasco-Alexander; Louise E Silver; Sergei A Gutnikov; Ziyah Mehta Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Peter M Rothwell; Mai N Nguyen-Huynh; Matthew F Giles; Jacob S Elkins; Allan L Bernstein; Stephen Sidney Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Miriam Brazzelli; Francesca M Chappell; Hector Miranda; Kirsten Shuler; Peter A G Sandercock; Martin S Dennis Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lai Hong Simon Chiu; Wah Hon Yau; Ling Pong Leung; Peter Pang; Chee Tat Tsui; Kuang An Wan; Thomas Tak-Shun Au; Wing Chi Fong; Shun Hang Joseph Chung Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2014-03-05
Authors: Marc B Rosenman; Elissa Oh; Christopher T Richards; Scott Mendelson; Julia Lee; Jane L Holl; Andrew M Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2020-04
Authors: Durgesh Chaudhary; Vida Abedi; Jiang Li; Clemens M Schirmer; Christoph J Griessenauer; Ramin Zand Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.003